Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Six New Phenom II And Athlon II CPUs From AMD

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2010 4:20:09 AM

Do I hear comeback from AMD? Hopefully the Bulldozer shows results with the AM3+/AM3r2 in benchs.
Score
1
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2010 4:23:23 AM

Good article and the 1075T is a good addition to the 6-Core line...
And most of all, thanks for confirming that all the current socket will be replaced next year including AMD.
Score
7
Related resources
September 21, 2010 4:25:31 AM

I'd love to see these new chips pitted against the T1000 processor.
Score
1
September 21, 2010 4:27:25 AM

aznshinobiDo I hear comeback from AMD? Hopefully the Bulldozer shows results with the AM3+/AM3r2 in benchs.

this is hardly a comeback, they simply filled in segments on the price range with not-so-new products. a little bump in speed, probably better binned, and a few more bucks. seems like the logical thing to do at this point, until bulldozer anyhow
Score
18
September 21, 2010 4:28:42 AM

I'd rather it was a 970T at 3.6 ghz with turbo up to 4.1ghz.
Then again, who wouldn't?
Score
-6
September 21, 2010 5:06:45 AM

I'm still waiting for Bulldozer, I hope that Bulldozer makes AMD king again. If so I'll buy another AMD system. I've been waiting since the early Dualcore Windsor cores.
Score
4
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2010 5:12:00 AM

nothing new here good on AMD if they keep the prices the same
the 645 and 450 are really crazy good deals
Score
4
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2010 5:22:20 AM

Our 6 or their 4... Yeah, I'll still take i7 4 cores over these crappy 6cores. Not to mention, the i7 920 can be pushed another 50% in speed, 1075T can not, and it's more expensive than i7 920.
Score
-22
September 21, 2010 5:26:15 AM

MoreCores...1075T can not, and it's more expensive than i7 920.


At $145, he 1075T is $40 cheaper than any Core i7 I can find online.
Score
10
September 21, 2010 5:34:02 AM

are these temps with stock cooler? they seem to be a big off...


oh sorry, missed the minus ambient part...

wow, thats kinda hot.... (30C ambient in here :(  )
Score
-1
September 21, 2010 5:34:43 AM

CleeveAt $145, he 1075T is $40 cheaper than any Core i7 I can find online.

I think you meant $245, Don.

I find it great to see the Phenom II 970 still capable of Cool'n'Quiet idle mode while overclocked. C'n'Q doesn't work on my 720BE at any speed over 3.2GHz. Is that something common to the C3-Stepping models?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2010 5:38:34 AM

Holy shit, 3.5 Ghz stock. I know it really doesn't mean much, but I still like the sound of that.
Score
9
September 21, 2010 6:07:07 AM

Sandra is very bad synthetic benchmark. It clearly favors Intel architecture and the differences are not that dramatic in real world applications. With enough bribes you seemingly can get nice optimizations.
Score
9
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2010 7:04:19 AM

A very well written article. It covered all the bases and was very informative. Damn good work, it's why people check in at Tom's Hardware.
Score
3
September 21, 2010 7:30:13 AM

I'm happy that my Core i5 750 stands up to 2 updates (speed bumps) of the Phenom II 955 (the 965 and 970). It even beats the 1075T!

I think the 750 is still the better CPU in it's price range.
Score
2
September 21, 2010 7:41:42 AM

Yeah there should hve been at least a core i3 fo good measure against the AMD 2's...
Score
0
September 21, 2010 8:30:44 AM

Very cheap tactic to lure the uneducated masses who will think that clock speed is king.

As far as gaming goes, an i5-750 at stock speed still craps all over these chips...and guess what? The i5 can also be easily overclocked! By yourself!!! OMGWTFBBQ1!1!
Score
-12
September 21, 2010 8:33:00 AM

How are the StarCraft 2 benchmarks possible? I NEVER drop below 55 fps and I'm using an Athlon II X3 445 with an HD 5750 and 4 GB of RAM. I don't get it.
Score
3
September 21, 2010 8:42:15 AM

ThePeacemaker10How are the StarCraft 2 benchmarks possible? I NEVER drop below 55 fps and I'm using an Athlon II X3 445 with an HD 5750 and 4 GB of RAM. I don't get it.


I should also mention I'm running on High with 1680x1050 resolution.
Score
1
September 21, 2010 9:18:22 AM

Quote:
How are the StarCraft 2 benchmarks possible? I NEVER drop below 55 fps and I'm using an Athlon II X3 445 with an HD 5750 and 4 GB of RAM. I don't get it.

I should also mention I'm running on High with 1680x1050 resolution.


Maybe the test conditions are different? The numbers in that graph are similar to the Tom's latest SC2 benchmark (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/starcraft-ii-radeon-geforce,2728-8.html), so I assume they use the same test method as that one.
Score
0
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2010 9:53:35 AM

The i5 750 is certinately a very nice chip, one I would recommend for gaming without a question, but if you use your PC for more than gaming, then the Phenom x6 range is beter value, It is also no slouch in the gaming department, whilst not matching the i5 750, is does not dissapoint and plays every single game on the market with loads of performance to spare!

The 1055t is still better value though as it will OC to exactly the same as the new 1075T, so i would not waste the money, go with the 1055t and OC it (I men 200mhz for free, why pay for it when you dont need it, also my 1055t makes 4Ghz on 1.5v and over 3.8ghz on 1.475)

Nice speed bumps though, and dont forget the shafting everyone is getting now buying a 1156 board! Damn things sometimes move too fast!
Score
0
a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 21, 2010 11:13:30 AM

Quote:
Of course, sometimes, a new processor stepping increases overclocking headroom a little. We test this in the benchmarks below.

What are you talking about? All these new releases are still the C3 stepping. There is no new stepping here.
Score
0
September 21, 2010 11:54:14 AM

I usually like amd processors (because of their price/performance ratio), but I just LOVE how the i5-750 overclocks
Score
2
September 21, 2010 12:18:03 PM

Very good article. The multitasking with Crysis is a step above and by far making this one of the best CPU reviews I have read.
Score
1
September 21, 2010 1:01:08 PM

I will keep my Phenon II 945 until I need a new PC. I'm not made out of money you know!
Score
1
September 21, 2010 1:04:47 PM

For the most part, AMD remains competitive and offers CPUs that'll get the job done for most people. Against any Core2 tech, AMD wins.

By the way... these MOOD LIGHTING ADs suck.. blaring and coming out of nowehere or a slight mouse over. hate it hate it!
Score
3
September 21, 2010 1:30:52 PM

I'm running an AMD Athlon II X635 and I couldn't be happier. Considering the $100 I paid, it has been a great choice for the typical mp3 ripping, Divx-to-DVD encoding and audio production software. I'm going to wait and see what the Bulldozer's bring before upgrading again.
Score
2
September 21, 2010 1:41:14 PM

A .2 GHZ speed bump doesn't really seem news-worthy...
Score
-4
September 21, 2010 1:47:00 PM

ThePeacemaker10How are the StarCraft 2 benchmarks possible? I NEVER drop below 55 fps and I'm using an Athlon II X3 445 with an HD 5750 and 4 GB of RAM. I don't get it.


Well, you are welcome to try our benchmark. It's posted to battle.net, instructions on using it here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/starcraft-ii-radeon...

I guarantee it'll drop below 55 fps. :) 
Score
0
September 21, 2010 1:48:33 PM

New platforms next year means I am waiting until I upgrade my e8500 and 4870.
Score
0
September 21, 2010 1:52:04 PM

Enzo MatrixWhat are you talking about? All these new releases are still the C3 stepping. There is no new stepping here.


Good catch Enzo, should have said revision. Fixed.
Score
1
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2010 2:29:50 PM

I don't get the point of adding 100mhz to a chip. Like the 760 over the 750. It's the same chip with a slight clock bump. You can just get the cheaper one and bump it yourself... So what's the point?
Score
0
September 21, 2010 2:56:15 PM

Wolfram23I don't get the point of adding 100mhz to a chip. Like the 760 over the 750. It's the same chip with a slight clock bump. You can just get the cheaper one and bump it yourself... So what's the point?


The point is many people do not overclock - believe it or not! I only overclock for benches and run stock the rest of the time. No point sacrificing stability when you can get that performance guaranteed stable (and for little to no price bump in the case of the 750/760)

What I enjoyed in this article was watching the i5 750 thrash the Phenom II x4 970 in clock for clock performance. They are 833 MHz apart at stock and the intel still almost always outperforms it.
Score
-1
September 21, 2010 3:15:56 PM

Why is the intel build using more RAM?
Score
1
September 21, 2010 3:27:50 PM

mrmookyWhy is the intel build using more RAM?


The core i5-750 build is using the same amount of RAM as the AMD system, 4 GB.

As for the Core i7-920 build, it *has* to use either more or less RAM to utilize the triple channel memory interface. And since we know that more than 4 GB of RAM makes no perceptible difference in performance except in very rare and specific applications, it's a fair practice...
Score
-1
September 21, 2010 3:34:55 PM

AMD needs to hurry up with Bulldozer. A product refresh is all well and good but I'd like to see AMD competitive on more than just price/performance.

Intel's on a 32nm process and early next year they'll be down to 22nm with Sandy Bridge. The speed crown has been Intel's without question since the i7 was first introduced.

I'd love to put an AMD processor in my next computer, but I have the money for i7. Unless AMD can become competitive in the high end I'll be going with Intel again.

I'm not interested in a hexa-core processors, either, as I do not use enough programs that would take advantage of that many threads
Score
3
a c 130 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 21, 2010 3:40:55 PM

Some of the 45W "e" series chips from the last bump have finally shown up at Newegg, but unfortunately are way overpriced.
With very few exceptions (maybe SC2 is one?), I think it's pretty clear that even a mid-grade CPU can handle just about anything most people care to do on their PCs, from office tasks, to rendering, and games. Beyond that, however long it takes, I think GPGPU is going to provide a HUGE performance boost in those markets that need it (not just research and other for-pay applications). The CPU will never be irrelevant, but +/- a few hundred MHz pretty much already is.
As stingy as i5 and i3 are, I am hoping that Bulldozer and/or Sandy Bridge can significantly improve performance/watt. I'm sure performance will be higher, but I'd like to see lower power use being the biggest contributor to the improvement.
Score
0
September 21, 2010 3:48:25 PM

Well, I'll just keep waiting for bulldozer then. Thanks for another great article Tom's!
Score
1
September 21, 2010 3:50:09 PM

ThePeacemaker10How are the StarCraft 2 benchmarks possible? I NEVER drop below 55 fps and I'm using an Athlon II X3 445 with an HD 5750 and 4 GB of RAM. I don't get it.


I have been hearing this from alot of people. I think the differences are mainly in the type of benchmark Tom's is running. They are running a map with enough pure AI decisions to stress the system for a full minute (On the benchmark setting the CPU obviously limits it first). The vast majority of ordinary games (even large FFA games) don't come close to this kind of stress.

You might see this kind of stress (and probably far worse) happen with a scenario like "Nexus Wars".

Anyway, on topic with the article, I'm still happy to see the i5-750 perform so well even through the stock clock increases. Maybe even with Sandy Bridge coming out, the price on them will go down...? Please Intel?
Score
-1
September 21, 2010 4:07:10 PM

I like what I see... unfortunately I think the Phenom II X4 970 only makes the 955 so much more worth it

and then again, this makes me more eager for the next generation of cpus

a question for the gaming benchmarks... I know this is not an uber-exhaustive test but why did you choose such a low resolution to play with?
I would think 1680x1050 would be a more popular resolution nowadays but then again I might be very wrong
Score
0
September 21, 2010 4:42:14 PM

triculiousI know this is not an uber-exhaustive test but why did you choose such a low resolution to play with?


Good question!

In a CPU test we try to avoid graphics card bottlenecks in order to isolate the processor's performance as the variable.

Hope that helps!
Score
6
September 21, 2010 5:14:57 PM

Interesting article. AMD is looking to fill price-gaps to win scraps before it shifts the enthusiast market with those 'Dozer CPUs and possibly a new socket.
Score
0
September 21, 2010 5:32:24 PM

i hope there is an 3.0GHz Athlon II X4 with 65W TDP
Score
0
September 21, 2010 5:40:46 PM

This just seems to be more of the same from AMD. New processors filling holes in their lineup. Until Bulldozer comes out and we hopefully see some real change I'll still prefer Intel.
Score
0
September 21, 2010 6:26:20 PM

MoreCoresOur 6 or their 4... Yeah, I'll still take i7 4 cores over these crappy 6cores. Not to mention, the i7 920 can be pushed another 50% in speed, 1075T can not, and it's more expensive than i7 920.


yeah lets see you stick that I-7 into socket775..no can do bro, this is what AMD is focusing on, don't be surprised to see your 1366 socket dead end in the next year or 2 also. yes the AMD cpus can be beat pretty easy, you're also competing against 5 year old platforms. my guess is the AM3+R2 will feature the higher fsb/memory speed path, hopefully up to 2000mhz, but that might be asking too much? it atleast better feature up to 1600mhz just to make up the difference for I-7 when bulldozer releases. that might wake intel up a bit and leave sandy bridge in the dust :) 
Score
3
September 21, 2010 7:27:19 PM

Damn AMD best still has not even come close to the (quad i7-920 old junk) that sucks.

Is there anything AMD that can get close to the Intel 6 core desktop cpu's ?

When will the AMD jokes start like:
Q:
How many AMD 6 cores does it to to make 1 Intel quad core ?
A:
99cpu's, 4cpu's to do the job and the rest to stand around looking prity giving moral support.

(A play on the light bulb change joke.)

I don't get it why would I spend $800 on a new pc just to buy newer version hardware that performs the same as my 4 your old rig. Surely there is something better faster more efficient out there to buy or upgrade too ?

Is Intel and AMD stuck and can not clone new Alien "UFO" hardware so we are stuck with pathetic hardware to buy ?
Score
-8
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2010 11:03:13 PM

I wonder if HT is slowing the Thuban processors down, after both were overclocked the Thuban with faster HT speed beat the 970 with lower HT speed at the same game.
Score
1
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 22, 2010 1:17:43 AM

where's the triple core?
Score
0
!